Filed: Dec. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY L. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:90-cr-00085-MOC-7) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Davis, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY L. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:90-cr-00085-MOC-7) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Davis, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY L. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:90-cr-00085-MOC-7) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary L. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a second sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Davis, No. 3:90-cr-00085-MOC-7 (W.D.N.C. July 24, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
